bjmike Posted January 23, 2009 Share #21 Posted January 23, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) This is cool, but why wouldn't Leica just share this profile with Panasonic and Panasonic would just program that into the LX3? Even if Leica didn't share, it's not like images can't be reverse-engineered and a profile created out of studying enough sample images. And maybe they have. I'm not convinced that there's much of anything that's really different between the two cameras. As I said up above, the color, contrast, sharpening for JPEG's can very easily be tweaked in the cameras' menus. RAW files should the same anyway: same lens, same electronics. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Hi bjmike, Take a look here In a Lumix LX3 vs D-lux 4 quandary. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
kalina Posted January 23, 2009 Share #22 Posted January 23, 2009 And maybe they have. I'm not convinced that there's much of anything that's really different between the two cameras. As I said up above, the color, contrast, sharpening for JPEG's can very easily be tweaked in the cameras' menus. RAW files should the same anyway: same lens, same electronics. There is a difference in the lenses as I posted: "Okay, for those who want to know... I angled the lens of both my LX3 and my D-Lux4 so my lamp could be see in the reflection of the lens. The LX3 lens is coated with something that's more blue. The D-Lux4 lens is more white. This is, I think, the opposite of what Ian Ho saw in his study of both cameras. Anyway, I LOVE my LX3 and decided to get the D-Lux4 to see what the rave was all about in terms of slightly better picture quality. I do mostly JPEG photography and am interested in the supposedly better algorithms in the D-Lux4. We'll see as I bring my new camera out to my parties." I showed someone else the difference between the lenses to verify that I'm not crazy and she saw the color tint difference. Whether there is a difference in picture quality because of a different lens coating, I don't know yet. I started taking pics of the same scene with both and didn't notice any noticeable difference. Maybe some pixels, but that could be because of many factors. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michiel Fokkema Posted January 23, 2009 Share #23 Posted January 23, 2009 Whilst this thread is still alive, here's another reason (from Leica's Web Page description) for my decision : "Leica Camera AG has developed its own unique colour matching, contrast and picture definition profile which produces digital characteristics complimentary to Leica M film photography." That's pure marketing BS. We all know that and an insult to our intelligence. Cheers, Michiel Fokkema Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbo035 Posted January 23, 2009 Author Share #24 Posted January 23, 2009 "That's pure marketing BS. We all know that and an insult to our intelligence." Well, I for one am not insulted and would go so far as to query the BS epithet, Michiel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertwright Posted January 23, 2009 Share #25 Posted January 23, 2009 what I wonder is if Leica will do a double discount on the camera, the 150 they are currently offering PLUS the 150 coupon they are giving out to M8 upgraders? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted January 24, 2009 Share #26 Posted January 24, 2009 I already posted a comment on this topic here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/digital-forum/75924-yayyy-i-got-my-titanium-d.html There are threads on the forum with direct photographic comparisons, take a look at those first. You pays your money and makes your - cosmetic - choice. That said if the price difference is marginal I'd choose the Leica. Panasonic appear to be rather pernickerty about things if you try to make a warranty claim, as a friend whom I'd advised to buy a Pana C Lux found out recently. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjmike Posted January 24, 2009 Share #27 Posted January 24, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm with James on this one. (Kalina's reports on the lens coating issue noted, tho). I'd prefer the Leica but, depending on what prices (i.e., rebates, sales, etc.) are like when I actually get around to buying, may end up with the Panny. I bought a VL1 over the Panny FZ-50 because the price differential was about US$20 after the rebate & because the FZ-50 was a discontinued model while the VL1 wasn't (and still isn't). By the time I get around to selling a piece of my company (or making it profitable), who knows what the situation will be. Until then, the cash won't be there -- so its all academic for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
firoze Posted January 24, 2009 Share #28 Posted January 24, 2009 I'd like to add my two penny's worth to the Leica vs Panny debate... I have spoken to several Leica factory personnel over the years since the time of the Digilux 1 and they have consistently maintained that Leica gets the cream of the production runs - sensors, lens elements etc. Their tolerances and quality control are also tighter than Panasonic's. At one time I owned both the LX-2 and the D-Lux 3 and the lens coatings on the two were distinctly different. So I am not surprised to hear that the coatings on the LX-3 and D-Lux 4 are different. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjmike Posted January 24, 2009 Share #29 Posted January 24, 2009 ". . .they have consistently maintained that Leica gets the cream of the production runs - sensors, lens elements etc. Their tolerances and quality control are also tighter than Panasonic's." Its easier for me to believe that there are different specs than that, off the same production lines, there's some QC guy or gal doing a final inspection and deciding the poorly made, defective units should be labeled "Panasonic" and the better made, perfectly spec'd specimens should be labeled "Leica". Chrysler actually did that in the early years of the "K" cars. The more competent factories made Chryslers and the others only made Dodge/Plymouth. It was a big scandal. I very much doubt this is the case with Panasonic/Leica. Frankly, if someone from Leica said this on the record (and in the U.S.) it would probably result in lawsuits. Besides that, the Leicas are MADE IN PANASONIC factories. Panasonic, which isn't known for producing low quality (whatever else you think of them), wouldn't be so stupid as to damage themselves by doing something like you suggest. It's brand suicide. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
firoze Posted January 24, 2009 Share #30 Posted January 24, 2009 ". . .Its easier for me to believe that there are different specs than that, off the same production lines, there's some QC guy or gal doing a final inspection and deciding the poorly made, defective units should be labeled "Panasonic" and the better made, perfectly spec'd specimens should be labeled "Leica".... You misunderstand bjmike, Leica personnel never implied that Panasonics were substandard or poorly made (indeed, these days, Panasonic has a reputation for being among the best made digital cameras). What they said was that Leica had tighter tolerances. Every manufacturer sets certain standards and tolerances for components. Those that fall outside these specifications are rejected. However those components that are closest to the ideal specification is what Leica gets from the production run. There is nothing wrong in this... if Leica is prepared to pay more for tighter tolerances, that does not make Panasonic "substandard", just less tightly toleranced than Leicas but still superbly made. This is something akin to Rolex and Tudor (which are less tightly toleranced than Rolex)... but no one complains that Tudor watches are substandard... The Chrysler example you quote is quite different and not applicable here - where it seems, from what you say, that the Dodge/Plymouth cars were actually substandard... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjmike Posted January 24, 2009 Share #31 Posted January 24, 2009 Since its Panasonic's factories, I still find it hard to believe that a) there would be two production standards and that Panasonic wouldn't do everything they could to use the highest quality they could. Japanese factories, Panasonic included, make a fetish out of Continuous Quality Improvement, Quality-driven manufacturing process re-engineering, benchmarking quality processes, etc. In general, if they are aware of a better process, they incorporate it into the manufacturing techniques. Its why Toyota & Honda & Subaru (Fuji) have higher quality than Mercedes, VW & BMW. Beyond that, setting up one factory with two sets of quality standards (meaning two virtually identical products -- in this case the DL4 and the LX3) with different parts specs (in terms of tolerances), different QC, etc., would be frightfully expensive and implies that Panasonic would be refusing to make the best product they could at the same time as they're also trying to build their brand as a very high quality one. Panasonic/Matsushita just doesn't do things that way. Having two slightly different products is doable on the same production line. Having otherwise undifferentiated parts sorted by variance from standards (which is what you're suggesting) would essentially require two different parts suppliers, etc. I don't know, beyond all this, whether I can express how unlikely & impractical & difficult this would be to do in a high volume, small parts, electronics manufacturing environment. It would make BOTH cameras very much more expensive. Different Lens coatings & different software are one thing, and relatively easy to do. What you're suggesting is not. :confused: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted January 24, 2009 Share #32 Posted January 24, 2009 I have the Lx3 and never wished for the Dlux4.Every time I see someone has the D-lux 4 I think: "He paid too much for the same thing, poor boy he was scammed" ... "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." W. Shakespeare Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted January 24, 2009 Share #33 Posted January 24, 2009 It's quaint to think of a group of Leica technicians in white coats sifting through all the components coming off the Panasonic production lines, measuring, testing and holding back the 'better' ones for themselves to cobble a few Leica's from. The reality will no doubt be a massive production line, making a run of 0000000's of Pansonics and then a run of 00000's of Leica's. I wouldn't be surprised to find that Leica have their own QC people on site (I think they do) to monitor things during the production run, but I really can't see how they would test every single component going into what is after all a low cost high volume product. Much of the price differential will simply be the impact of Leica's higher cost base and (I'm assuming) lower volumes, but they do also usually include a better software package and accessories. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenor1 Posted January 24, 2009 Share #34 Posted January 24, 2009 There is no need to belittle a person's decision to purchase either brand. It simply serves no purpose. I enjoy owning Leicas and for me is the reason I chose it. I've seen spectacular pictures taken with both cameras and also very poor ones. Owning a Leica does not make me a better photographer, I just enjoy owning it more than other brands. At my two local camera stores the salespeople prefer the Canon G-10, so I bought it along with a DL4. I prefer the DL4 probably just because it is a Leica. Nobody really cares but me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted January 24, 2009 Share #35 Posted January 24, 2009 James, It seems reasonably straightforward in manufacturing terms; for example on the production line each lens element could be very quickly tested for, say, light transmittance by shining a light source with known parameters through it and measuring the output. For any element that meets or betters a particular specification (Leica's for example) a gate in the production line is automatically opened and it's directed to the D-Lux 4 coating and assembly line while all others go straight through to the LX-3 coating and assembly line. I have no idea if this is what happens but in manufacturing terms it's not difficult to set up. No white-coated technicians needed. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan States Posted January 24, 2009 Share #36 Posted January 24, 2009 Doesn't the Leica come with Capture 1 4.5? The mere fact that one camera is recognized by a quality RAW handler and the other is not changes the game for anyone serious about image quality. If you are satisfied letting the camera make all your sharpness, noise and color decisions save the bucks. The added flexibility of all those great color profile options, black and white conversion ability and outstanding Chroma noise control in Capture One makes the Leica a serious camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalina Posted January 24, 2009 Share #37 Posted January 24, 2009 "Besides that, the Leicas are MADE IN PANASONIC factories. Panasonic, which isn't known for producing low quality (whatever else you think of them), wouldn't be so stupid as to damage themselves by doing something like you suggest. It's brand suicide. I agree about Panasonic. I own one of the first consumer miniDVD camcorders from Panasonic, the DV900, and it still works as well as the day I got it. I also own two Technics DJ turntables. These are known in the club industry as *the* turntables to get and equipped with Stanton Groovemaster cartridges can give any of those high-end turntables a run for their money. I'm actually happy with a Leica/Panasonic partnership moreso than a possible Leica/Sony or Leica/Sanyo. Although let it be known that most of my stuff is Sony and my first CD player ever was a Sanyo CP-10 which lasted over 10 years before it finally died. It was one of the first and last portable CD players to have RCA phono jacks on it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalina Posted January 24, 2009 Share #38 Posted January 24, 2009 In the end, I think the cameras are more or less identical. The differences are: 1. the longer warranty (this is probably worth at least $100) 2. the Phase One software (I was pleasantly surprised to see this, but the truth is even if you shoot RAW in ambient light in the dark, you still have to contend with pixelly images that no RAW software can truly fix)... worth $80 (from J&R Music World) 3. the different coating (it is clearly evident that the D-Lux4 lens coating is different from my LX3 lens)... don't know how much this is worth 4. resale value... it is clearly evident that used Leica cameras fetch a lot on ebay I won't include the red dot, since mine is titanium-colored We still have no empirical evidence that the pictures are better on the D-Lux4 than the LX3. Right now, we've all seen experiments but no lab tests. Even so, what makes an image better? Less pixellation? Better pixellation? Better contrast? We really could fix all that in Photoshop unless we were purists and just took the pics right out of the camera. (By the way, the brightness and contrast have always been spot on on the D-Lux4/LX3. I'd always have to adjust the brightness/contrast in Photoshop with my Nikon D40, D70, D300, and my crappy Canon PowerShots.) Is this worth $400 more? Maybe. The warranty is a good thing. My Titanium included a card to get a free leather case. I didn't expect that. This all reminds me of when I got my BMW Z3 in 97 (yes, the Bond Z3 when it first came out). The dealer kept saying "there are no discounts on a brand new sportscar." He then quietly handed me a card with this thing that said "vacation bonus" on it... a $500 check for buying the Z3 that I just had to send in to get. I also got a free CD changer ($800 value), floormats, and some other $50 thing, plus a measly $121 off list price. I liked how painless it was to buy my car. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isabelle Lenatio Posted January 24, 2009 Share #39 Posted January 24, 2009 The Leica looks better, smarter. And I have also heard that Leica gets the top quality products out of any batch Panasonic produces, it's similar to computer processors for instance. Whole families of processors are the same just specced out by qc and rated higher. Anyway back when I bough the Leica was almost twice as much so I went for the Panasonic. The three year guarantee.... I figured not important since most most digicams would by long be replaced by then by 50mp supermodels at prices way below the current price difference. But yes The Leica definitely looks nicer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michiel Fokkema Posted January 24, 2009 Share #40 Posted January 24, 2009 Doesn't the Leica come with Capture 1 4.5? The mere fact that one camera is recognized by a quality RAW handler and the other is not changes the game for anyone serious about image quality. If you are satisfied letting the camera make all your sharpness, noise and color decisions save the bucks. The added flexibility of all those great color profile options, black and white conversion ability and outstanding Chroma noise control in Capture One makes the Leica a serious camera. Now that Adobe supports the raw files this is not much of an argument any more. I rather have a camera without software and choose my own then pay for software included with the camera I will not use. Cheers, Michiel fokkema Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.